Resentencing hearing requested for former Newtown Oil owner

Nanci G. Hutson

Updated 7:07 pm, Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Lawyers for William Trudeau have asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its rejection of their earlier argument that his 16-year sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy was unconstitutionally harsh.

Trudeau, 50, former owner of the defunct Newtown Oil company, was indicted in 2010 on nine counts in a multi-million-dollar mortgage fraud. In 2013 a jury acquitted him of all but two charges.

In sentencing Trudeau, however, U.S. District Judge Janet Hall cited her belief that he was guilty on all counts. Trudeau's lawyers appealed the sentence on several grounds, including that it was so harsh as to deny his Fifth Amendment rights.

Earlier this month, a two-judge panel of the appeals court rejected the appeal on all but one narrow issue, ordering Hall to review whether her sentence took proper notice of federal sentencing maximums.

The renewed appeal asked that the whole matter be reviewed by the full membership of the appeals court, a step normally taken in cases of great complexity or where important constitutional issues are concerned.

Trudeau already has served about three years in this case, including time spent awaiting trial. In the appeal just filed, lead attorney Ross Garber said Trudeau should have served no more than 14 months.

"The district court arrived at this sentence after failing to identify properly the crime of conviction and by interposing its own fact-finding in place of the jury's,'' the appeal reads.

The United States Attorney's Office this week said the ruling, made public April 15, was "substantively reasonable'' and that the judge's rationale for the sentence was valid.

Garber's request for the rehearing is to give Trudeau's legal team a chance to argue for a reduced sentence based on their belief that Hall overstepped what was a possible penalty based on the actual conviction.

No set time frame is set for a decision by the court. If this appeal is not granted, the only other option for the lawyers based on procedure is to seek a hearing before the U. S. Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, Garber said he could not confirm what, if any, such hearing would be pursued if this second appeal is not granted.